Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I would like to ask Senator Cormier a question.

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Hon. the Speaker: There is very little time left. Senator Cormier, will you take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, that Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8—

The Hon. the Speaker: The time allotted for debate has expired.

[English]

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I strongly believe that every Canadian should have access to child care for their children in their language of choice, and that it must be an ambition of all governments and every jurisdiction to ensure that, one day, meaningful access for official language minority communities is a reality. I am sure that no one in this chamber disagrees with this ambition.

I want to thank you Senator Cormier for your leadership on these issues and for how passionately you champion this amendment. Although I will be spending the next minutes forcefully disagreeing with you, I do respect and admire you.

As I stated in my recent remarks, I do not agree with the concerns posed by you, Senator Cormier, but I acknowledge them. It is my view that the intent of this legislation is to include official language minority communities for the long-term.

Colleagues, I also want to remind you that Bill C-35 was adopted with support from all parties in the other place. Furthermore, Bill C-35 contains multiple provisions which highlight that funding for child care must include investments for official language minority communities. Paragraph 7(1)(c) states that funding must support:

. . . the provision . . . of early learning and child care . . . from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and that respond to their varying needs;

Subclause 7(3) states that federal investments into child care must be guided by the Official Languages Act. Subclause 11(1) states that the minister should have regard for the importance of having members of the council who are from the official language minority communities.

You will recall that I spoke about clause 7 at length during my speech a few weeks ago. This clause provides the rules of engagement; that is, the terms and the conditions. This is what I think matters most.

In this respect, I disagree that the amendment to clause 8 would be helpful — not only because of the legislative language that already exists in clause 7, but, along with the language within the agreements and the political pressure that all Canadians can place, these factors culminate in a meaningful protection of official language minority communities and a guarantee of long-term funding for those communities.

An amendment to clause 8 does not improve this reality, colleagues. In fact, the assertion here is that for those not included in clause 8, they are not guaranteed funding despite clause 7. If this is the case, does that mean that funding for children with disabilities is not guaranteed if they are not named in clause 8? What about families from rural communities? Is this paragraph in clause 7 insufficient for them as well? If you carry out that rationale all the way, then the provisions of clause 7 are altogether useless and meaningless.

I believe that it is more reasonable to assume that the guiding principles for funding are sufficient and that the purpose of clause 7 is to commit ongoing funding to partners based on the guidance that exists in this clause.

Let me use a parallel example. Consider the Canada Health Act. We are all familiar with this act which sets out, in sections 7 through 12, the criteria for a cash transfer from the federal government to the provinces. I recall that section 5 reads:

Subject to this Act, as part of the Canada Health Transfer, a full cash contribution is payable by Canada to each province for each fiscal year.

All this section tells us is that money will be paid. How it is presented is contained in other parts of the bill. Note that no one thinks that certain types of funding or funding for certain populations are not guaranteed because they do not sit in section 5 of the Canada Health Act because we understand that this is dealt with in other sections, namely, sections 7 through 12.

This is what clause 8 of Bill C-35 is intended to do. It makes a statement of money that will be transferred. The conditions, the rules of engagement and to whom is set out in clause 7.

Colleagues, two other notes. I mentioned the agreements. You will recall that in all of the agreements — except for Quebec, who has an asymmetric agreement — there is a stated objective of ensuring the official language minority communities have proportional spaces available equal to or above their share of population.

Additionally, I want to point out the investment of more than $60 million over five years included for early learning and child care in francophone and minority communities, including supports to develop the workforce through the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028.

I will not repeat all the remarks I made a few weeks ago, but I want to emphasize for all of us that, as it stands, the bill does what those seeking this amendment wanted it to do. The amendment is redundant and does not bring any further clarity, in my opinion.

I want to be clear on this: Today, a mere two years from the beginning of this Canada-wide early learning and child care system, families are still facing many issues in accessing care. We all know that for a project of this scale, it will take the better part of a decade before access to spaces is no longer a significant issue.

Colleagues, I am confident that Bill C-35 in its current form will result in generations of official language minority communities getting access to child care, to put it simply. We may not see it yet. But if we do feel an urgency, as I believe we all do, then amending this bill to do something that it is already doing and delaying its assent is the wrong decision.

Colleagues, it is also important to note that this question has been dealt with before. In the House of Commons, advocates presented these amendments. While changes were made to clauses 7 and 11, this amendment was never tabled. When it was tabled in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, it was rejected by a meaningful margin of 7, no; 4, yes; 1 abstention.

Your committee heard hours of testimony from witnesses from throughout the country — experts, academics, child care operators, Indigenous leaders and others. Your committee, having heard this information and considering it for many weeks, voted against this amendment. As you decide how you will vote on this amendment, please consider this decision that your committee made.

When thinking about urgency, colleagues, I explained a few weeks ago my process as to whether or not I would vote for amendments. In light of the political situation in the other place, the question is whether or not adopting this amendment would warrant the subsequent delays in the adoption of the bill. The consequences of these delays may be significant.

The delay inserts uncertainty. Provinces, Indigenous governments, communities, municipalities, not-for-profits, child care workers, parents and others are looking at us today. Jurisdictions are evaluating the trustworthiness of their federal partner. Cities and not-for-profits are planning the future development of spaces and the development of their workforce. Workers are wondering if they are going to have ongoing support and whether this is a sector worth staying in. Parents are wondering whether they need to give up on their dreams or if the possibility of affordable child care is coming soon. If this bill is delayed, it will significantly harm the development of Canada-wide early learning and child care, or ELCC, and I propose that this delay is not necessary.

I will end by reading the letter I referred to earlier in my question — which many of you have seen — that was sent to all of us this past week, signed by over 20 child care advocates who are experts, researchers, operators and workers in the early learning and child care sector from all over the country:

Canada’s child care movement, made up of a broad range of diverse organizations, urges members of the Senate to adopt Bill C-35 at third reading without further amendment. It was over 50 years ago that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government immediately take steps to adopt a “National Day-Care Act” to make federal funds available for the building and running of child care programs. Surely, we have waited long enough for such legislation to be adopted.

We recognize that several organizations, including from our child care community, proposed amendments to the Standing Senate Committee for Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Most reflect important concerns with respect to early learning and child care. We believe these should be addressed not by amending Bill C-35 but through a Standing Committee study. We believe that at this stage, Bill C-35 is sufficiently robust to ensure equitable access to child care for generations to come.

Colleagues, I ask you to please not delay the passage of Bill C-35. Do not let another year begin without federal child care legislation in place.

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I have a point of order, Your Honour. With the greatest of respect, I understood what you just said about the time running out when the debate was concluded — or when Senator Seidman’s speech was concluded — and that there was no time for any further questions. However, I do respectfully want to point out to you, Your Honour, that I rose on my feet on debate. I was on my feet before Senator Moodie, and you called her, and then I rose for the third time when you recognized Senator Boyer. That is why my honourable colleague pointed out that we seem to be invisible back here in this corner. I would respectfully draw that to your attention.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you agree, I will seek leave of the Senate to give you an opportunity to ask questions, even if Senator Moodie’s time is up. Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moodie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cormier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That Bill C-35 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 8, on page 6, by replacing lines 13 to 20 with the following:

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Senator Moodie, you mentioned that Indigenous leaders were consulted on the bill and that they were in agreement with it. Were Indigenous leaders also consulted on the amendment in committee when it was proposed? If so, what did they say about it?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: We did have discussion in committee. At the time, the Indigenous leader who had the question addressed to him, President Natan Obed, did make a comment. I will quote it because I have it in front of me.

The question asked was, “Do you think such an amendment would have any impact for Indigenous peoples? If so, what would it be?”

Mr. Obed replied:

I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Moodie, thank you for your advocacy on this bill. This piece of legislation has been a national aspiration for decades. It is now tantalizingly within our reach, and I commend you and other colleagues for bringing it here. However, we also have to get it right. I think we all agree with that.

You talked about how the guiding principles in clause 7 give you sufficient comfort. Senator Cormier wants to ensure that there is no legal ambiguity in clauses 7 and 8. These are two different clauses, and there is some confusion surrounding them. I noticed that you invoked the Canada Health Act, which is likely the mother of all confusing acts, and the bickering around the Canada Health Act does not give me a great deal of comfort.

I think about Bill C-48 last week or the week before. We approved an amendment and it was sent over to the House of Commons. I understand it has now come back. They did that quite quickly. Let’s say this amendment passes. My question to you is this: Why should we worry that if we make this improvement, it will somehow sink the entire armada?

Hon. Percy E. Downe: I have a point of order, Your Honour. We seem to have a problem at this end of the chamber. I do not know if there is a hearing or sight problem from that end of the chamber, but for the last week to 10 days, our members have had trouble getting recognized on questions. Senator Patterson was up earlier today. Senator Wallin and Senator Dennis Patterson both had to yell for dispense because nobody at that end of the chamber could hear. I’m not sure if it is a technical or communication problem, but it is a problem, and we would like it addressed as soon as possible.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you for that comment. I want to mention that when Senator Dennis Patterson did stand, I had said in French that the time allowed for the debate had expired. Therefore, I did not recognize him.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you. I will try to keep an eye on this area. I am sorry if I did not recognize you — again, because time had expired, and I had seen Senator Boyer. I recognized Senator Boyer first.

[Translation]

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Senator Cormier’s amendment to Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

As the senator explained so well, the amendment to clause 8 of Bill C-35 would confirm the federal government’s commitment to maintain long-term funding for early learning and child care programs for official language minority communities.

Honourable colleagues, as a senator from an official language minority community — the community of Saint-Louis-de-Kent — and proud Acadian, I must join the debate and support my colleague, Senator Cormier.

Ever since the federal government signed bilateral agreements with the provinces, official language minority communities have been worried about the fact that the funding will accelerate the assimilation of future generations.

Parents have expressed their concern for the survival of their language, whether in the testimonies heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages or in the communications received by my office.

[English]

For some of you, this may be the first time or the rare occasion when you hear about the difficulties for francophones outside of Quebec in having access to an education in their first language. It has been and remains an important concern for many parents. During my speech on Bill C-13 at second reading, I shared the challenge for official language minority communities to effectively have access to education in the official language of their choice for their children from ages 5 to 17. It is where we are losing roughly 35% of the eligible children outside of Quebec who are not receiving their education in French despite their rights.

There is a similar issue for children aged 0 to 4. Currently, there are not enough spaces for francophone kids outside of Quebec. During the study by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director for La Commission nationale des parents francophones, confirmed the difficulty:

The situation is alarming. According to the latest census, in 2021, 141,635 children aged 0 to 4 are entitled to French-language education outside Quebec. However, the number of authorized spaces only allows us to serve 20% of these children. In 80% of cases, parents must turn to English-speaking daycare centres.

As all francophones know, it has been and continues to be a constant battle. Colleagues, this is how assimilation happens, and how it is accelerated. Too many francophone parents across the country face the anxiety of their child’s education: Will it begin in their culture, in their language, or will it begin as assimilation at the age of 2? Too often, we hear the story of parents having to put their name on a wait-list before the birth of their child. Imagine the anxiety, colleagues, of not knowing if your child will even have a chance to begin their daycare in their language and culture.

There was a concrete example given at the Social Affairs Committee during its study of Bill C-35 by the President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter:

Let me tell you about a personal experience I’ve had since I’ve been in St. John that shows just how important the educational continuum is. If we fail in this continuum, we contribute directly to assimilation to English. There aren’t enough daycare centres in French, and some parents have no choice but to enrol their children in English-language schools. As a result, their children end up losing their mother tongue.

A friend of mine from St. John’s, a French-speaking Acadian, had no choice but to enrol her children in an English-language school. She told me: ”Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”

The situation is similar in Ontario and in each province. The survival of official language minority communities across the country depends on long-term funding commitments from the federal government. We cannot take a chance that the federal government will fuel the assimilation process by not ensuring long-term funding commitments in bilateral agreements on daycares. It is irresponsible on the government’s part to refuse such a reasonable amendment.

Like the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, said in his brief submitted to the committee:

. . . investing in early childcare centres for linguistic minority communities ensures greater success of the language transmission process, which in turn contributes to the vitality of the community. As Commissioner Fraser stated in his 2016 report, ”Early childhood development is an area for positive, preventive and proactive intervention to revitalize the French language and Francophone communities.”

[Translation]

If this situation does not change, colleagues, the French fact in Canada will slowly but surely disappear. The federal government must be responsible when granting large sums of money, as it does for the child care program. There must be clear commitments to official language minority communities.

With Bill C-13, the government committed to restoring the demographic weight of francophones in Canada to 6.1%, as it was in 1971. This commitment requires a collective effort on the part of the federal government, and Bill C-35 is part of that. Thanks to the amendment proposed by Senator Cormier, official language minority communities are being given a helping hand to maintain their demographic weight. Not only are they being given a tool to ensure that the government honours its commitment in future negotiations, but they are also being given a tool to help them if ever they need to go to court. All too often, Canada’s francophones have to turn to the courts to ensure their rights are upheld.

Linguistic minorities in Canada are a reality. Too often, we have to ask the courts to affirm our rights.

[English]

Colleagues, I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but I am an example of this assimilation. Due to there being no French schools in the Miramichi region at the time, I had to attend English schools while living in a French household. The linguistic environment outside the house was English, and slowly but surely, English became more predominant than French. My writing and reading skills in French suffered, and to this day, when speaking with my siblings, I often still do so in English. Colleagues, in today’s environment, with the internet, social media, et cetera, francophone kids are even more prone to lose their French compared to our time growing up with radio and limited television.

Honourable senators, the amendment presented by Senator Cormier is for future agreements on daycare with the provinces. We are voting on helping future generations to maintain the vitality of their language, their culture and their identity. By amending Bill C-35 in clause 8, we are helping the government’s own commitment to official language communities like it said it would in the Bill C-13 debates.

I want to repeat three words from the 2016 report on early childhood development from Commissioner Graham Fraser: positive, preventive, proactive. That is the essence of Senator Cormier’s amendment: positive, preventive and proactive. Colleagues, we complain so often about the federal government’s reactive approach to issues. And in this case, they are reactive. Therefore, let’s be preventive and proactive with a positive amendment to Bill C-35 and ensuring long-term funding to official language minority communities.

I want to personally thank my colleague Senator Cormier for his tireless advocacy on behalf of Acadians and francophones across the country. Honourable senators, let’s send a strong message to all official language minority communities in this country by supporting this amendment.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: We heard this afternoon, on three occasions, the mention of interpretation of laws. I would like to add to this versus “legally binding wording.” There is an important nuance that has to be brought into this context. So I start out of my text, but going into my speech.

[Translation]

I rise to speak to the amendment moved by Senator Cormier at third reading of Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada.

The amendment seeks to explicitly include a guarantee of long-term funding for official language minority communities, or OLMCs, in clause 8 of Bill C-35. I thank Senator Cormier and his team for all their work on this matter. His office and mine have worked together on this. During my speech at second reading, I expressed concerns about the fact that a department could draft such a critical piece of legislation for the vitality and survival of OLMCs without even mentioning them.

My concerns grew during clause-by-clause study of the bill at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I observed that Employment and Social Development Canada officials showed a very poor understanding of the constitutional rights and guarantees of OLMCs, as well as a certain absence of curiosity and sensitivity towards these communities in terms of the realities they experience and the potential impact of this legislation on their vitality and growth.

In this speech, I will outline the risks associated with the fact that clause 8 lacks any such guarantee, as well as the impacts of the proposed amendment, while also taking into account the relevant jurisprudence. As part of my analysis, I will attempt to refute the government’s interpretation of the so-called potential problems that the amendment in question could create.

In my opinion, the interpretations put forward are erroneous and even worrisome. They could be of particular concern if the courts were to draw on the comments that certain officials made to the committee when analyzing the legislator’s intent regarding the interconnectedness between the rights of Indigenous peoples and those of official language minorities.

First, I will talk about the proven dangers of omitting official language minority communities. Why is this amendment so important? As I argued at second reading, access to child care services in the language of the minority is key to the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to minority language education.

The bill seeks to create a national early learning and child care system in order to make services accessible to all. Under current bilateral agreements, funds are spent specifically to guarantee services for the children of rights-holders and Indigenous peoples. The government and its officials have tried to reassure us by pointing out the terms of these agreements, but you will understand that the purpose of the study is Bill C-35, not the agreements.

In addition, as a francophone in a minority situation, I fully understand the legal hierarchy between a bilateral agreement and federal legislation. Accordingly, including OLMCs in these agreements does not reassure me in the long term. I’m also mindful of the fact that governments change while statutes endure, hence the importance of considering an amendment to clause 8, as suggested by Senator Cormier.

Moreover, when it comes to services funded as part of the exercise of the federal spending powers, we must expect services of equivalent quality to be offered to both francophones and anglophones in this country. It is also imperative that Indigenous peoples receive adequate funding, in keeping with the exercise of their rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With regard to OLMCs in particular, the facts, as documented over many years of jurisprudence and by the stakeholders who were heard at the committee, highlight the systemic and structural barriers these communities face when it comes to having their constitutional rights to access education in their language recognized and exercising those rights.

This jurisprudence also points to a history of tensions between OLMCs and provincial governments when it comes to upholding the rights of these minorities. These tensions are fuelled by omissions similar to those currently found in clause 8, which have allowed provinces and territories to justify infringing on the rights of OLMCs across the country for years. It is time to change this dynamic and grant these communities the means to assert their rights before the courts.

The bill, in its initial form, provided no specific guarantees for OLMCs. Although three mentions were added at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place, François Larocque, a professor, lawyer and language rights expert, and the Honourable Michel Bastarache, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, both highlighted, in their testimony to the Social Affairs Committee, the persistent inconsistencies and risks associated with omitting official language minority communities from clause 8 of the bill.

Clarification enshrined directly in the act is critically important. It plays a decisive role in the courts’ analysis of the legislator’s intent, taking into account the intrinsic evidence.

Indeed, Canadian jurisprudence on language rights is clear in this regard. François Larocque, in his brief to the committee, refers to the decision in Caron v. Alberta, in which the Supreme Court of Canada refused to acknowledge the existence of language rights because of the absence of explicit guarantees in the relevant legislative and constitutional documents.

Colleagues, the legal risks inherent in this omission are real and substantiated by the facts and by the relevant jurisprudence on language rights. The absence of any explicit reference in clause 8 is therefore deeply concerning to official language minority communities. In my opinion, the committee should have taken the opportunity to clarify the legislator’s intent directly in the wording of the bill in order to minimize, as much as possible, any risk of causing harm to official language minority communities.

[English]

However, the government was unequivocally against any amendment and misled the committee in several aspects of its arguments.

New funding mechanism: Initially, the government claimed that the suggested amendment would establish a new funding mechanism for the official language minority communities. Respectfully, this interpretation of the proposed amendment is inaccurate.

Michelle Lattimore, Director General, Federal Secretariat on Early Learning and Child Care, Employment and Social Development Canada, stated:

 . . . legally speaking, English and French linguistic minority communities do not have the same status or role in delivering ELCC programs and services and in building and maintaining this Canada-wide system as the provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners do. Adding a reference to that group, then, in clause 8 would create the expectation for dedicated and increased funding. . . .

While the official was correct in distinguishing roles in program delivery, the interpretation of the amendment is misleading. Nowhere in the amendment was there a suggestion to treat official language minority communities as a governing body entitled to direct funding from the federal government.

In response to a specific question posed by the bill’s sponsor at the Social Affairs Committee, Professor Larocque provided the following statement to assist the committee in their deliberations:

Clause 8, on the other hand, specifies that funding is passed on through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories, and not directly to the communities, and that’s not what’s being asked for and reflected in the suggested amendments.

So it’s not a new mechanism that’s being proposed here, but quite simply, as my colleague suggests, taking into account the linguistic rights of official language minority communities in a firm long-term commitment.

Clause 8 currently reads:

The Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for early learning and child care programs and services, including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples. . . .

We can observe that the scope of the commitment in clause 8 extends to the Canada-wide early learning and child care system, while specifying a commitment for the long-term funding of programs and services for Indigenous peoples because of the word “including.” However, the inclusion or exclusion of official language minority communities from this commitment is unclear, and that is the problem. Following this, the clause states:

The funding must be provided primarily through agreements with the provincial governments, Indigenous governing bodies and other Indigenous entities that represent the interests of an Indigenous group and its members.

This enumeration establishes that funding must be granted through the appropriate mechanism. For official language minority communities, if they were to be included in clause 8, it would be done through the provinces. Official language minority communities do not have a nation-to-nation relationship with the federal government, unlike Indigenous governing bodies. Adding a reference to official language minority communities will not substantially change the law of the land, and it would be absurd to pretend that it will.

Adding an explicit reference to official language minority communities regarding guaranteed long-term funding by the federal government does not, in any way, diminish the protection and guarantees afforded to Indigenous peoples under this bill and under our Constitution, nor does it grant official language minority communities any rights that they don’t already possess. It provides them with a legal tool if the services in their languages are fewer and of lower quality than those provided to the majority of a given province.

The second argument brought forward by the government was regarding competing rights. Officials stated that the amendment could be detrimental to Indigenous languages. Cheri Reddin, Director General, Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Secretariat, Employment and Social Development Canada, said the following:

I’ll highlight that we officials were following the testimony of Indigenous representatives here last week. As Senator Moodie highlighted, President Obed was quite vocal about the absence of Indigenous Languages Act references and suggested the exclusive references to official languages came at the detriment of Indigenous languages.

First and foremost, this statement would be inconsistent with clause 3 of the bill which explicitly guarantees the rights of Indigenous peoples. It states:

This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

The statement of Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, was distorted both in committee and at third reading of the bill. In committee, when I asked Mr. Obed for his thoughts on this potential amendment to clause 8, he answered the following:

I was not aware of the amendment that you reference, but very often official language status for French and English is a sledgehammer that allows for those two languages to dominate in our communities. The very history of Inuit participation in Canada through health care delivery, education and government is the dispossession of Inuktitut in the face of federal, provincial and territorial legislation that empowers English and French even in our Inuktitut-dominated communities.

In this context, Mr. Obed addressed official languages while committee members were led to believe that his statement related to the amendment, which specifically concerns official language minority communities rather than official languages. The use of “official languages” and “official language minority communities” interchangeably by government officials and the bill’s sponsor created confusion when informing senators about the amendment’s impact on Indigenous peoples. Let me elaborate on the distinction between these two concepts.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

(At 11:15 p.m., pursuant to Rule 13-6(10), the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Appendix—Senators List

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I will speak in support of this amendment for several reasons — the first of which has to do with our responsibility to minorities.

[Translation]

In becoming a senator, one realizes that one of the essential aspects of our role, the protection of minorities, enables several under-represented groups to be heard and to be able to rely on the Senate when their rights are threatened or not soundly protected.

Allow me to begin by quoting our former colleague Senator Joyal, who said the following:

 . . . as these new categories of rights [were] added to the Constitution, the role of the Senate as the chamber for the expression of minority rights and human rights within Parliament has been confirmed, broadened and strengthened.

In its 2014 Reference re Senate Reform, the Supreme Court noted that the Senate repeatedly served as a forum for advancing the rights of under-represented groups, such as minority language communities.

My support for this amendment is based on what I have read and heard since the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began studying this bill.

Francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophone communities in Quebec know better than anyone just how complex the issues they have to deal with every day to help preserve our linguistic duality are. We need to listen to them when they ask us to help them slow the erosion of their rights.

Senator Cormier talked about that in his speech. During their testimony at the Social Affairs Committee, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, and Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, shared how distressed francophone parents feel when they’re forced to register their children in anglophone schools. Ultimately, as we’ve heard a few times this evening, those kids end up losing their mother tongue.

Senator Poirier mentioned this, but I want to repeat it because it is important. During her testimony before the Social Affairs Committee, Nicole Arseneau Sluyter, President of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, told us that there were not enough French daycares in Saint John. Because of this lack of choice, some parents are being forced to enrol their children in anglophone schools and, as a result, those children end up losing their mother tongue.

As Senator Poirier said, and again I want to repeat it because it is important, one of her friends who is in that situation said, and I quote, “Nicole, I’m ashamed, my child doesn’t speak French anymore.”

Clause 7 of Bill C-35 provides that the government must include official language minority communities in its future investments in early childhood education. However, this is a guiding principle, not a commitment. The composition of the national advisory council on early learning and child care set out in clause 11 must take these communities into account. Obviously, these provisions of the bill are insufficient to ensure that future generations will be properly protected.

In his brief, the Commissioner of Official Languages also invited us to amend clause 8 in the same way as proposed by Senator Cormier.

Furthermore, I agree with Commissioner Théberge that ongoing investment in child care centres for these communities is helping to strengthen language transmission and enhance the communities’ vitality.

Professor Michel Bastarache, former Supreme Court Justice, wrote to our committee to say, “. . . we need to avoid ambiguity and distinguish between political intentions and legal commitments.”

In his opinion, and I quote:

 . . . this refers to intergovernmental agreements in an area of provincial jurisdiction. We would therefore have to add the obligation to include in the agreement a requirement to provide funding for French-language training . . .

He is referring here to francophones.

Professor Larocque, who appeared as a witness, shared the same opinion. In his view, without an explicit reference to official language minority communities in clause 8, these communities risk being deprived of the federal funding they need to maintain their programs and services over the long term. Professor Larocque, as a legal practitioner, based his opinion on the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and the general principles of statutory interpretation to say that, without Senator Cormier’s amendment:

 . . . a court could reasonably conclude that clause 8, as currently drafted, only commits the federal government to guaranteeing long-term funding for programs and services “ intended for Indigenous peoples.”

The modification proposed by this amendment is not substantial. The amendment does not call for a new right, nor does the text of the amendment call for the creation of a new negotiating framework. The federal government is not being asked to enter into negotiations directly with official language minority communities. The framework set out in Bill C-35 calls for this funding to flow through agreements between the federal government, the provinces and the territories. The amendment doesn’t change that. Communities would not replace provincial and territorial governments in assuming responsibility for program design and delivery. Furthermore, this amendment does not take away anyone’s funding. It does not put Indigenous languages in competition with official languages.

It is often said, and rightly so, that laws last longer than governments.

Honourable senators, in closing, I would like to remind you that official language minority communities all across the country are facing the reality of insecurity. Asserting their rights often requires legal battles that take time, energy and financial resources, despite the existence of support mechanisms like the Court Challenges Program.

These communities are often dependent on the government of the day and the importance it places on their priorities. Thanks to this amendment, which I see as a protection, we have the opportunity of not leaving these communities to fend for themselves and condemning them to being potentially forced, once again, to go before the courts to make the case that they are included in the funding commitment under clause 8 of this bill.

This amendment, therefore, represents an opportunity to support them and that is why I support it. Thank you.